You may have missed the millions of complaints about Microsoft pushing a tablet interface onto Windows 8 desktop machines.

Millions? Really?
Seriously? Not even close.
Again: look at your Windows release history. The IT types *always* whines. A lot of storm and fury and it *never* means anything.
And the Win8 start screen is *not* a "Tablet interface". It is usable on XBOXes, Phones, and PCs. (To say nothing of the fact that PCs *still* have the Desktop one hardwired hot-key away.)

All these obituaries for a product that won't ship for three months?
Hyperventilation over very little.

MS has *always* seen hardware as a vehicle for delivering/supporting software sales. When the hardware is not available, they deliver it.
When the only available hardware is substandard (or there is good money in it) they deliver it.

Microsoft has already made it clear that they will price Surface competitively with other comparable products *and* that they will allow "price parity" for OEMs.

For those not familiar with corporate-speak: they will be priced with a decent profit margin baked-in, not below cost. (So if a Surface Tablet shows up at $199 it will only be if all OEMs have the ability to profitably sell $199 WinTabs.)

MS has made it clear that the reason they are doing Surface is to show everybody how Windows Tablets are *supposed* to work. How good Windows is when it's not crippled by corner-cutting components, trial-ware, generic drivers, etc.

Desktop PCs are established commodities, diversified into all sorts of niche and specialty products as required; tablets aren't. So far, OEMs have treated TabletPCs as a niche (and priced them accordingly high) instead of as a potential mainstream consumer product. That changes with Win8.

Surface, by providing a benchmark for performance, features, and price, will now force the OEM to treat the category as a mainstream product, not an after-thought. Small wonder they are squealing like pigs: they either improve on the Surface features and quality if they wish to charge more or they are forced to charge less if they deliver an inferior product.

Now, how is that bad for consumers?

No need to dream of $199 or $2000 Surface computers; neither is going to happen.
Neither version is going to be a basic, stripper model; MS is *not* going to be competing with Coby or Archos or any of the zillion android "crap-pads" in pharmacies and liquidation outlets. Neither are they going to be gold-plated status symbols for the Ferrari crowd. They *will* be priced in general iPad and ultrabook pricing range. They *said* so! They *have* to.

$399-699 for the ARM-based Tablets and $699-999 for the ultrabook-class Pro model are both likely and reasonable.

Me, I'm aiming for the x86 model so, unless one of the OEMs (Lenovo?) wows me with a cheaper WinTab, I'll likely pick up a Surface some time next spring, after they've been out a couple months and the market takes shape. I know what Microsoft is doing; I now want to see what their "partners" will do. (Besides bluster and whine.)

The pricing for the Surface tablet hasn’t been made public yet. But a low tiered $199 Surface tablet could spell doom for other companies that carry the Windows OS.

from the original quote above- There has not been any indication at all that MS was considering some low ball $199 for the Surface RT and certainly not for the Surface Pro. They clearly indicated that pricing would be consistent with other offerings with comparable specs. So the RT/Arm Surface would be in the $400-$500 starting price range as for similarly sized and spec'd Android tablets and iPads.

The Surface Pro they said would be priced similarly to Ultrabooks. I've seen some starting in the $600s so that means more than likely $600-$800 starting range depending on internal memory and wireless capability.

Millions? Really?
Seriously? Not even close.
Again: look at your Windows release history. The IT types *always* whines. A lot of storm and fury and it *never* means anything.
And the Win8 start screen is *not* a "Tablet interface". It is usable on XBOXes, Phones, and PCs. (To say nothing of the fact that PCs *still* have the Desktop one hardwired hot-key away.)

All these obituaries for a product that won't ship for three months?
Hyperventilation over very little.

It does, though. I.T. folks, along with lots of driver incompatibilities, admittedly, helped give Vista a huge negative buzz. The buzz from the tech saavy and the tech industry does make a difference.

It can't kill a product, but it can make an impact. And techies are pretty down on Windows 8...some of them really, really hate shoehorning the Win 8 tile start screen onto the desktop.

I don't know about the success of Windows RT. I think Surface Pro with x86 has a lot of potential, though - I'd certainly be considering it next year if I had some cash. Looks like an awesome gadget.

That particular conference is for employees only. If Mr Wang from Acer heard it from one of those employees directly instead of the internet grapvine I wonder if that could be considered industrial espionage?

MS has *always* seen hardware as a vehicle for delivering/supporting software sales. When the hardware is not available, they deliver it.
When the only available hardware is substandard (or there is good money in it) they deliver it.

Intel based Surface tablets would, of course, offer much greater functionality than iPads or Android tablets. The question is how they measure up on usability, battery life, weight, and not heating up.

If all that is working fine, then a higher price surely would be justified. Although it would be a smart move to price them slightly lower than iPads.

As for Windows RT ARM versions, we really don't know enough to pass judgement. They do come with full fledged MS office versions, which definitely is a great plus.